Semantic Responder Dependencies in Integrated End of Purpose Protocols

1. A computer-implemented method comprising: determining, in a multi-application landscape that includes multiple applications, to initiate an integrated end-of-purpose protocol for an object; providing, to different applications of the multiple applications, an end-of-purpose query that requests a respective application to determine whether the respective application is able to block the object; receiving, in response to the end-of-purpose query, an end-of-purpose vote from each application of the different applications, wherein each end-of-purpose vote is either a can-block vote that indicates that the application can block the object or a veto vote that indicates that the application cannot block the object; identifying at least one relevant-application veto model, wherein relevant-application veto models include a veto effect model and a master data source model that model which applications can raise a relevant veto vote with respect to another application, wherein the veto effect model indicates which applications replicate transactional data to other applications and the master data source model indicates which applications refer to master data in another application; evaluating received end-of-purpose votes and the at least one relevant-application veto model to determine whether any applications should be block instruction recipients; and if any block instructions recipients have been identified, sending a block instruction for the object to each block instruction recipient.

2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the object is a master data object.

3. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the master data object represents a data subject.

4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein relevant-application veto models are represented as matrices.

5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein relevant-application veto models are represented as directed graphs.

6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the veto effect model represents dependencies between applications with respect to replication of transactional data that references master data.

7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the master data source model represents master data dependencies between applications.

8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising updating each of the at least one relevant-application veto model to reflect transitive application dependencies.

9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein determining to initiate the integrated end-of-purpose protocol comprises receiving a request to initiate the integrated end-of-purpose protocol from a requesting application that can block the object; and wherein the method further comprises: determining, using the at least one relevant-application veto model, relevant applications for which a veto vote may be relevant to the requesting application; and providing the end-of-purpose query to the relevant applications and the requesting application and not to other applications of the multiple applications.

10. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein evaluating received end-of-purpose votes and the at least one relevant application veto model comprises: determining that a first application can block the object; and determining that no application has provided a relevant veto vote relevant to the first application.

11. The computer-implemented method of claim 10, wherein determining whether any applications should be block-instruction recipients comprises identifying the first application as a block-instruction recipient for the object based on the first application being able to block the object and no applications having provided a relevant veto vote relevant to the first application.

12. The computer-implemented method of claim 11, wherein sending a block instruction for the object to each block instruction recipient comprises sending the block instruction to the first application.

13. The computer-implemented method of claim 11, wherein the first application is identified as a block instruction recipient for the object after a second application has provided a veto vote that is not relevant to the first application.

14. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein evaluating the received end-of-purpose votes and the master data source model comprises: identifying a veto vote for a first master data object received by a first application; and determining that the first veto vote is relevant to a second application in that the first application is requesting the second application to not physically destruct the first master data object; and wherein the method further comprises: identifying the second application as a block instruction recipient; and configuring the second application to prevent physical destruction of the first master data object for at least as long as the first application continues to provide a veto vote for the first master data object.

15. The computer-implemented method of claim 14, wherein the first master data object is updated while in a blocked state based on at least one update provided by a user authorized to update blocked objects in the second application.

16. The computer-implemented method of claim 15, further comprising replicating an updated version of the first master data object from the second application to the first application.

17. A system comprising: one or more computers; and a computer-readable medium coupled to the one or more computers having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising: determining, in a multi-application landscape that includes multiple applications, to initiate an integrated end-of-purpose protocol for an object; providing, to different applications of the multiple applications, an end-of-purpose query that requests a respective application to determine whether the respective application is able to block the object; receiving, in response to the end-of-purpose query, an end-of-purpose vote from each application of the different applications, wherein each end-of-purpose vote is either a can-block vote that indicates that the application can block the object or a veto vote that indicates that the application cannot block the object; identifying at least one relevant-application veto model, wherein relevant-application veto models include a veto effect model and a master data source model that model which applications can raise a relevant veto vote with respect to another application, wherein the veto effect model indicates which applications replicate transactional data to other applications and the master data source model indicates which applications refer to master data in another application; evaluating received end-of-purpose votes and the at least one relevant-application veto model to determine whether any applications should be block instruction recipients; and if any block instructions recipients have been identified, sending a block instruction for the object to each block instruction recipient.

18. The system of claim 17, wherein the veto effect model represents dependencies between applications with respect to replication of transactional data that references master data.

19. A computer program product encoded on a non-transitory storage medium, the product comprising non-transitory, computer readable instructions for causing one or more processors to perform operations comprising: determining, in a multi-application landscape that includes multiple applications, to initiate an integrated end-of-purpose protocol for an object; providing, to different applications of the multiple applications, an end-of-purpose query that requests a respective application to determine whether the respective application is able to block the object; receiving, in response to the end-of-purpose query, an end-of-purpose vote from each application of the different applications, wherein each end-of-purpose vote is either a can-block vote that indicates that the application can block the object or a veto vote that indicates that the application cannot block the object; identifying at least one relevant-application veto model, wherein relevant-application veto models include a veto effect model and a master data source model that model which applications can raise a relevant veto vote with respect to another application, wherein the veto effect model indicates which applications replicate transactional data to other applications and the master data source model indicates which applications refer to master data in another application; evaluating received end-of-purpose votes and the at least one relevant-application veto model to determine whether any applications should be block instruction recipients; and if any block instructions recipients have been identified, sending a block instruction for the object to each block instruction recipient.

20. The computer program product of claim 19, wherein the veto effect model represents dependencies between applications with respect to replication of transactional data that references master data.